Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277247733
CITATION READS
1 1,351
1 author:
Thomas Kindermann
Portland State University
40 PUBLICATIONS 1,454 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Kindermann on 26 May 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Peer Group Influences on Students Academic Motivation
Department of Psychology
PO box 751
Portland, OR 972070-0751
kindermannt@pdx.edu
To appear in: Kathryn Wentzel and Geetha Ramani (Eds.) HANDBOOK ON SOCIAL
INFLUENCES ON SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL, MOTIVATION, AND COGNITIVE
OUTCOMES IN SCHOOL CONTEXTS.
I would like to thank Darlene Hess for her help with literature reviews and Ellen Skinner for her
Most, if not all, cultures have found it useful to give childrens education a formal structure that
organizes their educational experiences in a way so that designated teachers and fellow students
participate at the same time. The benefits of teaching children in groups appear to extend beyond
economic considerations. Students interactions with agemates enhance their learning over and
above the provisions of adult educators. In fact, many children appear to go to school or to like
school (better), precisely because their peers and friends are there.
This chapter follows the idea that students peer relationships at school are an integral feature of
their learning environments. Historically, attention to factors that foster academic development
has mostly focused on teachers and parents. However, peers make childrens time at school
help, personal validation, and emotional support (Hamm & Zhang, 2010). Overall, it does not
seem to be the case that peer influences necessarily occur at the expense of learning. Instead,
they may foster learning, and this chapter explores the idea that one way in which peers may
The notion that peer relationships are important for childrens development has always been
central in developmental psychology (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). Peers are essential for social
development, for learning how to get along with others, for juggling individual needs with the
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 3
needs of a larger social structure, as well as for learning how to receive help and support, for
aligning oneself to the larger peer culture, and for making it through a year when things get
tough. Peers are also considered important for cognitive, affective, and behavioral development,
and they have been described as crucial for identity development and for experimenting with
Although there has been much research on peers negative influences (e.g., Dishion, McCord, &
Poulin, 1999), this chapter focuses on their positive influences for development related to
academic motivation. The goal is to organize research on the role of peers in academic
development according to their provisions for the main aspects of motivation, focusing on four
central issues. First, there is the question of which aspects of motivation should be open to peer
influences. Perhaps, all aspects are susceptible, but it may also be that some are not. Secondly,
there is the question about which kinds of peers are most influential; not all agemates will be
similarly important. The third question is about the conditions under which correlational
evidence can actually demonstrate peer influences. Finally, the question of future research is
addressed, especially taking into consideration how studies can capture configurations of peers
and examine the mechanisms through which social influences from peers occur in the real world.
By its nature, motivation is an intrapsychic construct and resides within an individual. Such
internal motivation is greater to the extent that children feel efficacious, view the goals of school
as focused on learning and improvement, attribute failures to effort, harbor positive academic
emotions and feelings of competence and self-esteem, expect success, value school, and find
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 4
academic tasks worthwhile (Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2006). For that
reason, all these facets of appraisals and beliefs have been studied as parts of motivation.
At the same time, motivation also shows on the outside. Academically motivated students like
and enjoy learning in school, persist in academic tasks, participate in school activities, and
believe that school is important (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Motivated students are visible to
teachers and peers. In fact, all major motivational conceptions rest on engagement and
disaffection as key components of how motivation manifests itself in the classroom and is
communicated to teachers, parents, and peers (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). Engagement is usually
Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Skinner, Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009), but
the term is also used as a broader marker of the extent of students involvement in general school
activities (e.g., participation in extra-curricular activities; Juvonen, Espinoza, & Knifsend, 2012).
Decades of research on academic motivation, both its intrapsychic markers and its manifestation
in engagement, suggest that the construct may best be conceived not as a fixed characteristic, but
as a malleable state that is the product of interactions among a host of internal and external
factors. For children, social relationships are prominent among the external factors (Martin &
Dowson, 2009). Across all major conceptualizations of the motivational system (see Wigfield et
al., 2006), it appears that (nearly) all components can be affected by interactions with peers.
Theoretical and empirical attention to peers has been paid with regard to students academic and
social goals (Hamm, Farmer, Lambert, & Gravelle, 2014), expectations for success and failure
(Wigfield & Tonks, 2002), self-system processes (Deci, La Guardia, Moller, Scheiner, & Ryan,
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 5
2006), attribution processes (Hareli & Weiner, 2002) and self-efficacy (Schunk & Meece, 2006),
as well as course preferences (Crosnoe, et al., 2008), and affective reactions and feelings of self-
worth (Covington & Dray, 2002).It is plausible to assume that most of the components of the
motivational system are open to peer influences. The following section discusses howdifferent
kinds of peer relationships may be influential, and perhaps for different aspects of motivation.
The peer worlds of childhood and adolescence are more complex than many adults may suspect.
There are many different kinds of peers in a school, and many of these overlap with one another.
Figure 1 provides a schematization of five prominent traditions. The first two take the entire
school, a grade, or a classroom as their setting of reference; peer influences emerge from outside
childrens groups. Sociometric approaches have evolved from Morenos (e.g., 1934) method and
examine childrens social standing among peers by identifying sets of children who are preferred
as social partners (i.e., accepted), disliked, or neither. The typical setting is the whole classroom,
and classmate influences are thought to occur differently for accepted versus disliked children. In
comparison, Social Crowd approaches examine childrens reputations among all of their peers at
school. The goal is to identify social categories, for example, crowds of brains or nerds.
Members of different crowds have different reputations and different peer experiences. Overall,
crowd approaches follow classic social psychological thinking and focus on childrens proclivity
to establish and follow group norms, often in relation to notions of peer pressure.
Both approaches assume that the most important social influences are consequences of a childs
belonging to a specific group or category, but that they do not directly emerge from the other
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 6
members of that group (i.e., members of the crowd of nerds may not even know each other;
rejected children may not interact much with one another). Children do not self-select into these
kinds of groups; their membership is the result of a social verdict. Members are expected to be
treated differently based on their group assignment, and the differential treatment likely comes
The second set of approaches (proximity groups, friendship groups, and interaction groups)
focuses on influences that emerge from within childrens social groups (denoted by arrows).
These follow Morenos postulate that knowledge about students affiliations would make it
possible to forecast how well students would do over time. Most prominent are studies that
identify childrens friends (e.g., Berndt, 2004). Friendships are intimate relationships between
partners who help each other, like each other, enjoy being together, share details about their
private lives and their views about the world, and value each other. Friends are typically
identified using reciprocal nominations, in which two children separately indicate they are
friends with each other. The large majority of social network approaches followsa friendship
perspective, during childhood as well as adulthood (e.g., Borgatti, Mehra, Brass, & Labianca,
2009). An alternative approach is Socio-Cognitive Mapping (SCM, Cairns & Cairns, 1994).
SCM approaches aim to capture childrens frequent interaction partners among peers. Thus,
whereas friendship approaches assume that close relationships are the most important predictors
of development, SCM assumes that it is frequency of interaction (over and above relationship
quality) that is the driving force; proponents typically point out that frequent interactions can
lead to friendships. To identify groups, children participate as expert observers and provide
their knowledge about existing peer groups in their classroom, their grade, or their school.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 7
Finally, there is a small emerging research direction that combines Morenos postulate with
Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) assertion that frequent face-to-face interactions are the
engine of development (p. 6). Physical proximity in the classroom is seen as most important
because it enables interactions (van den Berg, Segers, & Cillessen, 2012). Children spend
probably most of their time each day interacting with classmates who sit next to them, so
classroom seating charts are used to assess physical distances. There are no reports about the
extent to which proximity is motivationally relevant, although teachers tend to believe so.
These five kinds of peer relationships differ on many dimensions: self-selection vs. assignment,
size, frequency of interaction, closeness and intimacy, and presumed prioritization of the
mechanisms of influence. One way of thinking about their differences is through the use of
groups as mesosystems that include multiple dyadic relationships (some of whom are friends),
and crowds and sociometric groups can be thought of as exosystems because, although children
are affected by the social verdicts, they do not necessarily interact with many of them on a daily
basis. Several research groups have become interested in contrasting and comparing influence
processes from different kinds of peer relationships (e.g., Gest, Moody, & Rulison, 2007; Hamm
et al., 2014; Kindermann & Skinner, 2012; Rodkin & Ahn, 2008, Urberg, Degirmencioglu, &
influences, and it will be interesting to see whether accounts of multiple interconnected peer
systems can heighten the levels of accuracy for estimates of peer influences. In the following
section, the relevance of peer group affiliations for motivational development will be discussed.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 8
Studies on the various kinds of peer relationships suggest that it is likely that peers shape
childrens academic development and school motivation. Most of the studies do not claim that
they are able to identify peer influences, but they point out various avenues through which the
presence of peers at school can become beneficial for academic and motivational development.
Studies on peer acceptance demonstrate that social status in the classroom is related to feelings
of belonging in school, academic engagement, and achievement (e.g., Cillessen & van den Berg,
2012; Ladd, Herald-Brown, & Kochel, 2009). From kindergarten to post-secondary education,
when students experience rejection from their peers, this limits their participation in classroom
activities (Flook, Repetti, & Ullman, 2005; Vronneau, Vitaro, Brendgen, Dishion, & Tremblay,
2010). Conversely, when children are accepted by their peers and feel included, this fosters
motivation and learning in school (for a review, see Juvonen, et al., 2012). Popularity seems to
be different from peer acceptance; when children aim to become popular, this goal can be
Convergent findings result from studies on perceived peer support (Murdock, 1999), on
students feelings of belonging (Hamm & Faircloth, 2005), and on support in schools peer
cultures (Lynch, Lerner, & Leventhal, 2013). Note that findings on correlations among
acceptance, belonging or support, and academic outcome variables (like GPA) are overall very
Indications of peer influences from social crowds at school are likewise consistent. Studies focus
(Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993). For example, students known as Brains
exhibit highest levels of academic competence and have more academically-oriented friends
(LaGreca & Prinstein, 2001). Again, findings on relations between crowds and achievement are
compatible with motivational influence processes (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992).
Studies on friendships have similarly shown that peer characteristics are connected to childrens
decisions for academic versus non-academic activities during class time and beyond (Kilian,
Hofer, Fries, & Kunle, 2010), to engagement with schoolwork (Donna, Laursen, Kiuru, Nurmi,
& Salmela-Aro, 2014), as well as to their ability attributions for success and failure, and their
values of academic standards (Altermatt & Pomeranz, 2003), their academic aspirations
(Hallinan & Williams, 1990), classroom participation, school involvement, and overall
adjustment to school (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Hamm & Faircloth, 2005). Overall, the relations
with academic achievement seem consistent with that view (Ryan, 2001).
Similarly, studies on smaller cliques and peer networks of students who frequently interact with
one another (SCM groups) have also shown that the characteristics of a childs group members
are related to that childs motivation. Thus, early adolescents peer group affiliations are
connected to their tendencies to drop out from school (Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1990), their
engagement in the classroom (Kindermann, 2007) and in school (Wentzel, 2005), as well as their
For a long time, conclusions about social influences from childrens peers were based entirely on
correlations using concurrent data, assuming that similarity between individuals and those peers
was partly a product of social influence (Kandel, 1978). However, with correlational data,
reciprocal effects: Friends may have become friends because they had similar values or interests
already; better-liked children may perform better in school because children who do well in
school are better liked; crowds of brains may have simply found a home for themselves and
Experimental designs can provide evidence of causal influence, but the potentially influential
features of peers, such as liking, friendships, crowd reputation or peer group membership, cannot
behave in specific ways, show that with existing friends, crowd or peer group members, causal
influences can be demonstrated (e.g., Prinstein, Brechwald, & Cohen, 2011). But then, being
able to make individuals or their friends do specific things in a lab setting does not necessarily
mean that these effects mirror naturally-occurring peer influence processes (see an insightful
discussion in Rutter, 2007). One study that examined causal influences from friends
experimentally was conducted by Berndt, Laychak, and Park (1990). Students discussed
roll concert). Although the findings showed only small influence effects, the study demonstrates
Most studies on peer influences rely on correlational designs. For such studies, four
recommendations can be made to heighten the chances that actual influence effects are
indentified: Peer influence effects can be approximated if studies are longitudinal, if peer
selection effects can be separated from influence effects, if aggregate scores of peer group
antecedents can be formed that have interindividual differences, and if time windows for
examinations are consistent with the nature of the target phenomenon under study. Multi-level
analyses are preferable because of interdependencies between the individual and peer data.
individual change in motivation over time is predicted from the characteristics of childrens
antecedent peer groups, using individuals as their own controls and controlling for initial peer
selection effects. Socio-cognitive mapping and friendship studies adopted longitudinal analyses
early in order to come closer to identifying peer influences (Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999;
Kindermann 1993, 2007; Kindermann, Mccollam, & Gibson, 1996). Today, it is almost
impossible to think about capturing socialization influences without examining how social
influences create change. Figure 2 gives a schematization of the basic model for examining peer
influences over and above pre-existing similarities. The model can be seen as a part of Kennys
Actor-Partner-Independence Model (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). It has been used in
regression analyses of peer and friend influences as well as Structural Equation (SEM) analyses.
In detail, the correlation between individuals and their peer groups at Time 1 denotes the extent
of initial person-to-group similarity and is the indicator of peer selection processes. The
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 12
prediction from initial peer group characteristics to individual Time 2 scores is the estimate of
socialization effects. Note that same expectation is examined in SIENA analyses (Simulation
Investigation for Empirical Network Analysis, Snijders, Steglich, Schweinberger, & Huisman,
2007; SIENA is based on logistic regression and requires categorical variables). The advantage
of SEM analyses is that intraindividual change is examined over and above stability, whereas
SIENA simulates changes from cross-sectional slices of the data without attention to stability.
The advantage of SIENA is that peer selection estimates are sampled over time, and not just at
the beginning of a study. This can have advantages when selection processes change over time.
In these models, children who are initially with highly motivated peers (and tend to be
motivationally similar; homophily) are expected to increase (or remain stable) over time,
whereas children who are initially with less motivated peers would decrease. Note that this
expectation is different from models that hypothesize increased similarity as the primary
Peer group profiles. How can antecedent peer group characteristics be captured? Nearly all
regression-based studies have used averages of the members of each childs peer group on the
variable of interest, such as academic engagement, as the indicator of group characteristics. The
assumption is that the average levels of the members of a group (such as their mean levels of
engagement) would, through social interactions, lead to changes in the individual himself or
herself. Note that the use of averages gives up on the notion that there would be well-defined
non-overlapping groups that exist as distinct entities; each child is seen as having his or her
own peer group sphere, consisting of the members that he or she is connected with (friends or
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 13
frequent interaction partners). Although averages are poor descriptors of the groups central
tendencies, to define groups as individual spheres of partners has the advantage that the peer
contexts differ interindividually; the same strategy is used in SIENA Average Alter models.
Multi-level models. An elegant approach to the study of peer influences is multi-level modeling,
a strategy introduced to the peer literature by Ryan (2001; see also Chen, Chang, Liu, &He,
2008). The approach is promising for two reasons. First, since there are typically large mean
differences between groups, distinguishing a group level of analysis from an individual level can
lead to more accurate estimates. Secondly, socialization estimates are also likely to differ across
groups. Even when individuals serve as their own controls over time, when peer influence effects
can be estimated separately for different groups, this should have advantages. However,
traditional hierarchical linear modeling approaches work only with non-overlapping groups (so
that individuals are in only one group). A promising development for overlapping groups
(friendship or peer groups) are cross-classification strategies that have been developed for data in
which children attend several schools at the same time (e.g., Fielding & Goldstein, 2006).
Controls for sample imbalances. When individuals serve as their own controls over time (see
Figure 2), effects of sample imbalances (e.g., biased distributions of gender, intelligence,
transitivity, reciprocity) will be much less severe than they would be in concurrent analyses.
There are, however, controls that still need to be considered. For example, girls tend to do better
in school, and by middle school, they tend to be in peer groups with mostly other girls. If over
time, girls show enhanced patterns of motivational change, the conclusion that this is due to their
(also better functioning) peer groups can be misleading. Statistical controls are needed that
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 14
account for gender effects. Self-selection into peer groups (homophily) can also exist for other
characteristics, like intelligence or ethnicity, and respective controls would also need to be
included. In addition, SIENA proponents argue for additional controls of network characteristics,
for example, reciprocity (if friendship data are used; SCM observation data are always reciprocal
affiliations) and transitivity (so that indirect effects from friends-of-friends are controlled).
Time windows. When longitudinal designs include only one measurement point per school year,
there is a question whether the time window is ecologically valid. In most school systems, the
composition of classes changes over years, which leads to changes in peer selection processes. In
addition, when teachers change over the years, their ratings of student outcomes (e.g., grades, or
teacher rated engagement) will also change. If cross-year changes are analyzed without
considering ecological changes, peer effects will be misestimated. SIENA seems most
appropriate to analyze cross-year peer influences because changes in peer group composition are
included. However, changes in classroom composition and in teachers are typically not, and this
can lead to misestimating influence effects when measurements occur just once in a school year.
The most sensible approach seems to be to assess peer group influences within a given year (i.e.,
from fall to spring, when students have the same teacher and are with the same peers), and then
to augment these findings with results on sequential changes across years. Usually, it can be
expected that selection effects are larger at the beginning of a school year, when peer
relationships reorganize. Thus, the magnitude of peer selection can be expected to decline across
the year, whereas socialization effects can be expected to accrue over the same period.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 15
Controls for extraenous simultaneous influences. In an insightful essay in 1947, Max Weber
cautioned networks researchers that .. if at the beginning of a shower a number of people on the
street put up their umbrellas at the same time, this would not ordinarily be a case of action
mutually orientated to that of each other, but rather of all reacting in the same way to the like
need of protection from the rain. (p. 114). Gest and Kindermann (2012) used the term
influence all members of a peer network in the same way, impersonating peer group influences.
Because school is organized by teachers, changes that appear to be peer influences can instead be
a (confounding) effect of teacher influences. If the teacher treats all members of a peer group
similarly (e.g., because they are all similarly disaffected), effects would be misinterpreted. The
same can hold true for parents as well, even if they are not present in the classroom. For
example, children of the same class and ethnicity who share a group may develop similarly
because of their parents similarities in school involvement. Recently, several studies have begun
to examine such confounding effects in more detail. Burke and Sass (2008), in their longitudinal
data of all public schools in Florida, point out that estimates of peer influence effects become
considerably smaller as soon as teacher effects are also considered. Kindermann and Vollet
(2014) re-analyzed data on an entire cohort of sixth graders in a small town, and the strength of
peer group influences also differed depending on simultaneous adult influences. Students who
saw their teachers or their parents as very much involved with them in their activities at school
showed almost no influences from peer groups on classroom engagement. The largest peer
effects were found for students who saw their parents or teachers as comparably uninvolved.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 16
Peer group structures in school are complex and cause-and-effect relations with regard to their
motivation, even though it has become increasingly longitudinal, perhaps the most promising
avenue for further substantiating causal claims are studies that focus on the specific interactional
mechanisms through which peers exert influences in the real world. A second promising path is
the study of peer cultures that form as combinations of the basic kinds of peer groups.
Peer influences are outcomes of social interactions, and studies can aim to identify the
psychological pathways by which the influences occur. The field has recently begun to take up
the question of mechanisms, and there have been increasing numbers of studies in recent years.
Studies can roughly be sorted into those that examine cognitive mechanisms, behavioral
researchers have examined social cognitive processes, such as social comparison, through which
individuals self-evaluations or actions are shaped by their interpretation of the behavior and
accomplishments of their peers. Cohen and Prinstein (2006) used chatroom experiments in which
individuals responses to hypothetical scenarios were observed when people were in the presence
of peers with low versus high social status. Because peers were randomly assigned, changes
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 17
indicate actual social influence. Brechwald and Prinstein (2011) reviewed similar studies and
concluded that influences were mainly directed towards behavior that matched the norms of a
valued or desired group, towards behavior that contributed to a favorable self-identity (e.g.,
comparisons within different kinds of friendships. For example, Herbert Marshs studies (Marsh,
et al., 2008) on the big-fish-little-pond effect indicate that students tend to compare themselves
to the overall achievement culture in their schools. Thus, adolescents who attended schools in
which peers were academically highly achieving, tended to show lower academic self-concepts
than students with the same levels of academic ability who attended lower-ranked schools.
When it comes to specific relationships, similarity and closeness among partners seem to be the
main criteria for choosing comparators (Huguet, et al., 2009). Thus, most social comparison
studies on specific relationships looked at friendships, and these studies are usually more
detailed, capturing how comparisons actually occur (e.g., glances at classmates progress,
success; Altermatt, 2012). Altermatt and Pomeranz (2005) examined the role of social
comparisons for childrens self-concepts within friendships, and found that when reciprocal
friends were achieving above children's own levels, children showed higher levels of
achievement over time but also lower levels of academic self-concept, compared to children with
similar initial achievement levels who were affiliated with lower-achieving friends.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 18
It seems important to point out that cognitive processes, like social comparison, do not
necessarily have to rely on notions of competition (see also Brophy, 2005), which may lead to
early termination of the friendship. For example, Tessser, Campbell, and Smith (1985)
differentiated between arenas that are central to one of the friends self-defintion and secondary
arenas. Friends tend to compare themselves favorably in their central arena, and less favorably in
others. Altermatt (2011) highlighted the cognitive processes through which students benefit from
friends accomplishments, by sharing and enjoying each others successes. It may be that the
social comparison approach, if it continues to broaden its scope, may come to include more than
ranking and competition and so move towards a concept like social tuning.
observational learning. For example, Berndt and colleagues (1990) studied the effects of
has been studied much since Pattersons work on behavioral mechanisms in the development of
aggression; a key example is Dishions work on peers deviancy training of problem behavior
(Dishion, et al., 1999). With regard to school motivation, Sage and Kindermanns (1999) study
patterns for on-task and off-task behavior instigated by different interaction partners, namely,
from members of childrens peer groups versus from non-members or from the teacher.
Observational learning mechanisms have also been discussed in terms of their relevance for
motivational development, but have not yet been studied much in the real world. In principle,
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 19
peers can act as models for the development of academic behavior, for example, when children
observe similar peers who demonstrate successful ways to cope with failure (Altermatt &
Broadie, 2009). Although less emphasized, provisions of help and assistance among peers can
have very direct influences on subsequent performance; help seeking shows clear relations to
changes in achievement (Ryan, Jamison, Shin, & Thompson, 2012). Resource control strategies
should also be mentioned as a possible influence mechanism (Hawley, Little, & Pasupathi,
2002); perhaps, forms of bribery can be included in this category. Brute force and coercion are
probably best discussed in the bullying literature as mechanisms of peer influence (e.g.,
Salmivalli & Peets, 2009). Identification mechanisms, despite their long history in the
study by Taylor and Graham (2007) on peers whom students admired. Finally, peer contagion
may be another mechanism, but for reasons of clarity in definition, it is likely best to reserve this
term for situations in which it can be directly observed. For example, the term seems well suited
for contagion of engaged emotions, like enthusiasm for an activity or topic, but it should not be
used when cognitive mechanisms (e.g., social comparison) or reinforcement provide clearer
explanations.
Potential motivational mechanismsof peer influence. Finally, one can conceive of a set of
motivational mechanisms through which peers can influence each other. These focus on the
premise that motivation has an energizing function and can give behavior a direction. Peer
relationships can be seen as relationships that have the potential to provide motivational
provisions, such as emotional support, warmth, security, a sense of belonging, and autonomy
support. Note that this makes motivational mechanisms different from mere contagion. The
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 20
simple presence of peers is energizing and enjoyable to children, and it can guide the direction of
their behavior. Kindermanns studies (1993; 2007) are based on the premise that being affiliated
with peers who are more or less engaged is an influential factor for childrens own motivational
development, over and above their initial motivation. Such basic energization may also provide a
resource foundation for all other kinds of peer influence mechanisms (e.g., instrumental help,
feedback, social comparison, reinforcement). Note that if self-selected peers have such an
energizing motivational function, experimental simulations with randomly assigned peers may
not provide an accurate estimate of the actual amount of influence that can occur.
Peer relationships, because children largely select their partners themselves, are also likely to
support autonomy-- and so they provide space for children to be themselves and may foster
exploration and experimentation with possible academic identities to a greater extent than
relationships with partners who are culturally assigned (teachers) or genetically and/or culturally
assigned (parents). It is worth noting, however, that this perspective leads to conceptual friction
with classical notions about the role of peer groups: In essence, members of peer groups would
not necessarily need to become more similar to one another. Instead, they could become more
different from one another through autonomy supportive influences among members of a group.
The Social World of Schools: Multiple Peer Relationships and Multiple Relationships
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 21
Although the different strands of research on sociometric acceptance, crowds, friendships, and
peer networks have been followed for decades along separate pathways, there seems to be an
emerging trend to integrate and re-align conceptualizations, in order to combine their virtues for
understanding the complexity of childrens peer relationships (e.g., Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997).
Nearly all studies that examine interconnections among different kinds of peers point to
similarities and overlap among the groups captured by the respective traditions (e.g., friends and
interaction groups show about 50% overlap; correlations between group characteristics and
academic variables are comparable). Nevertheless, some studies suggest that there might be
different processes that emerge from different relationships. One example is a study by Urberg
and colleagues (1995) that showed that social crowds and friendship groups were differentially
related to substance abuse. Another example is a study by Gest, Graham-Berman, and Hartup
(2001) that examined sociometric status (rejection), SCM networks (centrality), and friendships.
Each aspect was associated with distinct profiles of prosocial and antisocial behavior.
Recently, Hamm and colleagues (2014) used the term Peer Cultures as a construct that
encompasses multiple aspects of peer relationships. They examined the roles that (SCM) peer
networks and social prominence (nominations for being cool, a leader, and popular combined,
roughly indicators for acceptance) play in students academic effort, valuing of school, and
academic and social processes at school with control schools. Social prominence appeared to
accompany effort and valuing of school, (injunctive) behavioral norms were found in peer
groups that were high in effort and achievement. Molloy, Gest, and Rulison (2011) examined
differential effects from reciprocal friends, overlapping (SCM) peer groups, and non-overlapping
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 22
peer nominated groups in 5th and 7th graders. Strongest peer socialization effects in terms of
changes in engagement were found for reciprocal friends; SCM groups showed smaller effects.
However, SCM groups showed the strongest indications of social comparison processes as
mechanisms of peer influence. The differences may be sample-specific; Kindermann and Skinner
(2012) reported that the engagement levels of childrens reciprocal friends and of members of
(SCM) groups showed about the same amount of influence on changes in classroom engagement.
In looking ahead with regard to combinatorial studies, it seems most promising to consider
children as active participants in relationships that will influence them over time. Thus, the active
role of peer selection could be contrasted with peer contexts that are more culturally or socially
assigned (e.g., social crowds or teacher-assigned proximity, see Figure 1), and both can be
examined in terms of the resulting influences from peers. There is some need to overcome
passive socialization assumptions because children always influence each other reciprocally.
One way to sort out some of these findings would be to consider the particular functions that
different forms of peer relationships may have. Broadly categorized, acceptance/popularity may
be most closely linked to appearance, status, and reputation. Social crowds may be similarly
related to appearance and reputation. For both, social comparison processes, peer pressure, and
social norms may be the most important mechanisms. In contrast, for friendships, because of
their intimate nature, felt security, and secure base-exploration (identity) may be most important
functions. Hartups (1992) findings on the heightened prevalence of conflict among friends may
also suggest that friendships are a place for authentic exploration of (differences in) genuine
opinions and goals. Alternatively, (SCM) interaction groups would be characterized by comfort,
enjoyment of shared activities, and perhaps constitute the playground in which children delve
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 23
into alternative developmental scenarios. Finally, classroom proximity could be most connected
to adult-supervised learning and work on tasks. Of course, it may be possible that all different
kinds of peers have comparable amounts of influence on academic motivation and behavior
overall, but it seems likely that they would differ in their patterns of influence-- different kinds of
peer relationships may differ in the strengths, mechanisms, and motivational targets.
Larger social worlds of school. The chapter should not end without mentioning that peer
relationships at school play out under the invisible hand of the teacher (a term used by Urie
Bronfenbrenner, see Farmer, McAuliffe, & Hamm, 2014), and that parents may have a similarly
invisible hand in childrens development at school (Kindermann & Vollet, 2014). Even
further, attention to classroom structure and composition may need to be included (Capella, Kim,
Neal, & Jackson, 2013; see also the chapters by Gest and by Patrick & Mantzicopoulos in this
volume). All would need to become part of efforts to capture classroom or school ecologies.
Epilogue
This chapter started out with the expectation that peer relationships at school are complex and
multilayered, and that their influences on academic motivation and achievement would be
important and perhaps varied as well, partly with different motivational influences from different
peer relationships. There is some support for this notion. However, more research is needed,
especially studies using designs that analyze changes over time, focus on multiple kinds (or
combinations) of peers, and consider multiple (perhaps alternative) mechanisms. Peers seem to
be a permanent and integral part of school contexts, whose effects on academic and motivational
development are largely positive, and if children can find ways to negotiate these multifaceted
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 24
social worlds (which include their teachers and parents as well), peer researchers should also be
inspired to continue to incorporate some of these complexities in their ongoing empirical efforts.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 25
References
W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships and adjustment at school (pp. 109-134). Charlotte, NC:
Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The implications of having high-achieving versus
Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Jiao, Z. (1999). Influences of friends and friendships on
Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends' influence on adolescents' adjustment to school. Child
Berndt, T. J., Laychak, A. E., & Park, K. (1990), Friends' influence on adolescents' academic
664-670.
Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2010). Network analysis in the social
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 26
Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational
Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1:
Theoretical models of human development (pp. 993-1028). New York, NY: Wiley.
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer
Burke, M. A., & Sass, T. R. (2013). Classroom peer effects and student achievement. Journal of
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., & Neckerman, H. J. (1989). Early school dropout: Configurations
Cappella, E., Kim, H. Y., Neal, J. W., & Jackson, D. A. (2013). Classroom peer relationships and
behavioral engagement in elementary school: The role of social network equity. American
Chen, X., Chang, L., Liu, H., & He, Y. (2008). Effects of the peer group on the development of
Cillessen, A. H N., & van den Berg, Y. H. M. (2012). Popularity and school adjustment. In A. M.
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 27
Ryan, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships and adjustment at school (pp. 135-164).
Cohen, G. L., & Prinstein, M. J. (2006). Peer contagion of aggression and health risk behavior
Covington, M. V., & Dray, E. (2002). The developmental course of achievement motivation: A
Crosnoe, R., Riegle-Crumb, C., Field, S., Frank, K., & Muller, C. (2008). Peer group contexts of
Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). On the
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and
Donna, M., Laursen, B., Kiuru, N., Nurmi, J.E., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2014). Maternal affection
766-771.
Farmer, T. W., McAuliffe, L. M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role
32, 247256.
Fielding, A., & Goldstein, H. (2006). Cross-classified and multiple membership structures in
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S.
Flook, L., Repetti, R. L., & Ullman, J. B. (2005). Classroom social experiences as predictors of
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
Gest, S. D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and
Gest, S. D., & Kindermann, T. A. (2012). Analysis of static social networks. In: B. Laursen, T.
Little, & N. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 577-597).
Gest, S. D., Moody, J., & Rulison, K. L. (2007). Density or distinction? The roles of data
structure and group detection methods in describing adolescent peer groups. Journal of
Hallinan, M. T., & Williams, R. A. (1990). Students characteristics and the peer-influence
Hamm, J.V., & Faircloth, B.S. (2005). The role of adolescents close friendships in school
belonging. In N. Way, & J.V. Hamm (Eds.), The meanings and experiences of friendship in
adolescence, New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, Monograph Series no.
Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., Lambert, K., & Gravelle, M. (2014). Enhancing peer cultures of
academic effort and achievement in early adolescence: Promotive effects of the SEALS
Hamm, J.V., & Zhang, L. (2010). The schooling context of adolescents peer relations. In J.
Meece & J. Eccles (Eds.), The handbook of schools and schooling effects on development
Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a
37, 183-193.
(Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 186-215). New York, NY:
Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Pasupathi, M. (2002). Winning friends and influencing peers:
Huguet, P., Dumas, F., Marsh, H., Rgner, I., Wheeler, L., Suls, J., Seaton, M., & Nezlek, J.
(2009). Clarifying the role of social comparison in the big-fishlittle-pond effect (BFLPE):
Juvonen, J., Espinoza, G., & Knifsend, C. (2012). The role of peer relationships in student
(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 387-401). New York, NY:
Springer.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). The analysis of dyadic data. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Kiefer, S. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Striving for social dominance over peers: The implications
for academic adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,
417-428.
Kilian, B., Hofer, M., Fries, S., & Kuhnle, C. (2010). The conflict between on-task and off-task
actions in the classroom and its consequences for motivation and achievement. European
Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individuals development: The
Kindermann, T. A., McCollam, T. L., & Gibson, E. (1996). Peer group influences on children's
Kindermann, T. A & Skinner, E. A. (2012). Will the real peer group please stand up? A
tensegrity approach to examining the synergistic influences of peer groups and friendship
networks on academic development. In A. Ryan & G. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships and
Kindermann, T. A., & Vollet, J. W. (2014). Peer networks and classroom ecologies: Peer group
Ladd, G. W., Herald-Brown, S. L., & Kochel, K. P. (2009). Peers and motivation. In K. R.
Wentzel, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 323-348). New York,
NY: Routledge.
La Greca, A. M., Prinstein, M. J., &. Fetter, M. D. (2001). Adolescent peer crowd affiliation: Linkages
with health-risk behaviors and close friendships. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 26, 131-143.
Lynch, A. D., Lerner, R. M., & Leventhal, T. (2013). Adolescent academic achievement and
Marsh, H. W., Seaton, M., Trautwein, U., Ldtke, O., Hau, K. T., OMara, A. J., & Craven, R. G.
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and
achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of
Molloy, L. E., Gest, S. D., & Rulison, K. L. (2011). Peer influences on academic motivation:
Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human
Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational predictors of
Prinstein, M. J., Brechwald, W. A., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). Susceptibility to peer influence:
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 32
Rodkin, P. C., & Ahn, H.-J. (2009). Social networks derived from affiliations and friendships,
Rutter, M. (2007). Proceeding from observed correlation to causal inference: The use of natural
Ryan, A. M., Jamison, R. S., Shin, H., & Thompson, G. N. (2012). Social achievement goals and
adjustment at school during early adolescence. In A. Ryan & G. Ladd (Eds.), Peer
relationships and adjustment at school (pp. 165-186). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent
Sage, N. A., & Kindermann, T. A. (1999). Peer networks, behavior contingencies, and childrens
Salmivalli, C., & Peets, K. (2009). Bullies, victims, and bully-victim relationships in middle
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy in adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Adolescence and education (Vol. 5, pp. 71-96). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G (2009). Engagement as an
& A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 223-245). Mahwah, NJ:
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 33
Erlbaum.
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping,
Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. E. G., Schweinberger, M., & Huisman, M. (2007). Manual for
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent
Taylor, A. Z., & Graham, S. (2007). An examination of the relationship between achievement
values and perceptions of barriers among low-SES African American and Latino students.
Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Smith, M. (1984). Friendship choice and performance: Self-
evaluation maintenance in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 561-
574.
Urberg, K., Degirmencioglu, S., Tolson, J., & Halliday-Scher, K. (1995). The structure of
Van den Berg, Y. H. M., Segers, E., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Changing peer perceptions
Vronneau, M. H., & Vitaro, F. (2007). Social experiences with peers and high school
419-445.
Vronneau, M. H., Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Dishion, T. J., & Tremblay, R. E. (2010).
Kindermann Peer Group Influences 34
Transactional analysis of the reciprocal links between peer experiences and academic
773-790.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: Free Press.
Elliott, & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 279 - 296). New
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership:
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of
Handbook of child psychology, 6th Ed. Vol.3. Social, emotional, and personality
Wigfield, A., & Tonks, S. (2002). Adolescents expectancies for success and achievement task
values. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 53-82).